>>'The company seems to believe that the mere fact of putting these plays on justifies them'

Got anything to say about the review or the production? Click the button above and let us know.

Allow me to say this.... after reading this review, I can't stop but thinking this reviewer is so affected by the inconveniences caused pior to the show. Thus, resulting a too subjective and negative review. Is this a review? I hope I am not imposing anything... just just a concern on how reviewer "view" a play.

Well but pardon me, I beg to differ. The reviewing job is good, in its scrutinising issues but definitely hides a certain anal-retentive tint. The reviewer is absolutely right about the venue being impractical, but not unbearable. A good piece of theatre, does not arise from comfortable viewing. That absence of luxury, will not destroy a good piece of art, in a real theatre-goer's mind. First of all, I don't agree that Max and Horst (played by Mark and Yu beng) lacks chemistry. When I watched the play, esp. at the end, the kind of frustration one feels at heart is wrenching. And that to me, arises from the exact chemistry the two main leads gave me. I read the script prior to watching, and I thought Beatrice Chia has thoughtfully provided surprises in her theatrical consideration. Yes, there is more slapstick comedy but exists well to reduce the kind of frustration one has to bear, watching the play. And if one is so disturbed, like the reviewer has mentioned, to leave the play - there is no point in staging the whole play. Precisely the reviewer has pointed out, theatre is meant to disturb minds. But in this case, I applaud the director for disturbing minds, as well as ensuring the kind of comedy to assist the audience to sit through the frustration, arriving at the glorious end. If one doesn't sit through to the end, I think the catharsis is non-existent in any sense. Just to mention also, the music is appropriate and certainly deserves credit, esp. the last track at the end.

This raises the question of whether the holocaust - or any such issue - should be softened to make it easier to take in. Perhaps there are places where that can happen, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't Sherman's intention when he wrote the play. I think it unlikely that people would actually walk out of a performance that didn't overplay the comedy and remained true to the piece's intended tone, but even if they did, they would walk out knowing that they were unable to face the horror - horror based on real history - of what they were seeing. That is valuable knowledge in itself. Giggling your way through Holocaust Lite TM is not.

Which reminds me, the back of the programme carried an ad by a local gay sauna promoting its "Homocaust August". I think that fact says all I want to say about this production.

Except that, yes: the music was good.

Having read the numerous review on Bent, i must say i agree with mr Kenneth's more than the rest. Bent is definitely one gd prdtn, as what someone has commented it having 'seamless production values'; a high contender surely for the next year's Life! Theatre Awards. But it is not one without several underlying inherent problems that somehow mars the potential of Martin Sherman's text. Foremost, the raffia webs, though a creative use of the material, come across as tad too cliche- at least for me that is. Its symbolic significance does not go in sync with the rest of the realistic acting, props and costume. One then loses the sense of environment, the context on which the character-driven piece is located (hence i speculate the use of the lengthy write-up on Nazi Germany in the programme booklet)And the traverse stage configuration and occasional light spill onto the audience somehow disrupts the audience's suspension of disbelief; one realises he's not alone in his/her theatrical experience because he/she can easily capture the reactions of the other audiences sitting opposite and beside. Second, why choose to stage Bent? I do not think the issue of survival applies today, rather i belive's it's more of an issue of gay and lesbian rights. Love can triumph in most, if not all, types of pairings, be it hetereosexual or homosexual. I fear it may be a case of 'milking the pink dollar' (clarrissa oon) while perpetuating the notions that homosexuals are incapable of loving- Max and Horst die in the end- and can only act within boundaries- the motif of surveillance running throughout the play, right till the end. Last note: it was disturbing, not to see Max and Horst 'having sex' but to witness the audience laughing at them.

in response to student: since you appear quite sincere in your attempt to analyse Bent and its efficacy as a production, may i humbly suggest a few misconceptions or possibly faulty assumptions in you analysis : * non-naturalistic set elements (like the raffia) and a 'real' setting (like nazi germany) are not mutually exclusive. Do you require real fences, cobblestones and cement bunkers to transport you to the setting of the play ? A black box production already takes liberties with space and location, and the world of the play is left to the audience's imagination. The use of symbolic set design (rather than representational set pieces) could well suggest a subtext to the setting, offering a deeper sense of what nazi germany stood for, what its denizens felt - above and beyond mere representation of real places. * re: seeing the audience opposite you. I doubt if the aim if this production was to give each audience member an isolated, solitary theatre experience. All live theatre thrives to some extent on the shared experience of live audiences, communicating in subtle ways with each other and the performers. All the more so, staging in the round or in the traverse highlights the presence of the audience to itself, reminding each person that he or she is not solo, is not alone in his/her act of watching.judging,learning. Such staging choices reinforce the social impact of the play, highlighting the social responsibility tagged to all our responses. If you want theatre to be that 'personal' and nothave other audiences in the picture, watcha video at home. Live theatre is, after all, 'live' and a social process. * 'why choose to stage BENT' is a problematic question. Why not ? Are you suggesting that simce we are no longer (as you claim) suffering from human discrimination, we can happily forget the holocaust happened, and put on plays that deal only with the most immediate, daily affairs ? Many would argue that the arts exist to remind us of greater issues than our daily lovegames - that may be the realm of the soap opera. If we were to question play-choices your way, then very few plays would be performed, or films made. Mad Phoenix - irrelevant. Mardi Gras - irrelevant, since we don't have one. Forbidden City - SO irrelevant. Agnes of God - even more irrelevant. Beauty World - dead and gone, why bother. There would be very very few things to watch, and most of the world's best plays will never come our way... the local audience sees a pathetic enough range of the world's best as it is, do not starve it even more by denouncing good writing that challenges mass-expectations.

I watched BENT (extended season) on 6 September. Not with Mark Richmond nor Lim Yu Beng as lead actors. It doesn't matter. The two actors who played Max and Horst were great. I could "feel" with them. I teared towards the end. It was touching. It was well-acted. It was done with so much passion in the acting. Yes, the stage may not have been the best of all stages. The holding area was small and warm. The theatre itself was not easily located. And I tripped and sprained my ankle on my way down after the show - no thanks to the small steps and slippery ground. But I enjoyed the production. And I think the actors were great. I am glad I went for the play and have shared it with friends. And will continue to. Congrats to the team for a great production!

Yes, I forgot to add - the music is good work too.

Yes, I forgot to add - the music is good work too.

I watched the last run of Bent (not with Mark Richmond & Yu Beng as leads) - and I have to say that it was one of the best plays I have seen in 10 years. You're right, it's perhaps not as raw and gritty as it was meant to be... but for me, it was good enough. At the end of it, I felt upset but not overtly suicidally so... I think that's a sign of good control by the director and the actors in not over-indulging in the act of "milking the audience for all their worth". Please, the subject matter in itself was tough enough! Admittedly the attic space is horrendous but I think it was well utilized despite its limitations. I would love to return to see another play in the space - just to (hopefully) see how carefully it can be manipulated again. Set-wise I liked the sparseness and the use of the strings, both as set and as prop. Very clever. One thing that I thought a wee bit distracting was the thumping of the feet (that I guess is somewhat unavoidable) on the "stage floor". Perhaps if the platforms were padded with carpet that would eliminate some of that sound? And lastly, a note for the stage hands that day, SMILE! It's unavoidable that people step on the stage area because of the confined space, it's not a crime :) I saw more than a few people being told to "STAY OFF THE STAGE" in a rather curt way... and I think that can somewhat spoil the evening. Oh yeah, last comment... where were the programmes? There wasn't any when I went, such a pity. I would love to have received one. But in general, well done Toy Factory, kudos to the Director and Cast! Charmaine Tan